Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Do Not Date, Mate With Or Marry Leftists

Friday, July 7th, 2017

In its never-ending attempt to scare people away from being conservative, the fake media unintentionally discovered a good idea: Leftists and conservatives should not date, mate or marry. analyzed dating activity before and after Trump’s election. It found that during January, typically the most active time for dating platforms, activity declined in the most Democratic counties, while dating activity increased in the most Republican counties.

“Not only are liberals signing up at a lower rate, but they’re also engaging less,” Match said in an email.

Match has a term for this: the “love deficit.” And it’s more significant under Trump than it was during Barack Obama’s presidency.

This is not surprising. A growing body of evidence suggests that political inclination is mostly genetic, which suggests that Americans may be splitting into two genetically-distinct groups:

The researchers found a strong link between the DRD4 gene and the students’ political orientations. Specifically, the determining factor was one section of the DRD4 gene, where a sequence of 48 letters in the genetic code repeats between two and eleven times. Study participants mostly had either two (2R) or four (4R) repeats. People with two copies of the 4R version of the gene were significantly more conservative than people with any other combination.

And the link was strongest for the 888 female students in the study. Of the female students who rated themselves highly conservative, 62.5 percent had two copies of the 4R version of the gene. Among those who rated themselves highly liberal, only 37.9 percent had two copies of the 4R version.

It is unwise to date Leftists for a number of reasons. You could end up with a baby any time you roll the dice on dating, and if the parents are incompatible, that child will grow up in a divorced or alienated household. Even more, Leftism — based on the lie that people are equal — seems to correlate highly with dishonesty, flightiness and other negative traits.

But in the long-term view, it makes the most sense for these groups to separate. If conservatives and Leftists stop reproducing together, populations will be created which carry on their views in their genes, ensuring that future generations are more likely to see the world the same way their parents did.

In addition, this isolates the Leftist population as a prelude to relocating it to the third world, where all of its most cherished ideas — equality, diversity, freedom, social welfare — are already in practice. Let the two groups separate. We were never meant to be together, and our incompatibility runs deeper than political viewpoints.

Politics Under Diversity

Friday, May 19th, 2017

America had several early diversity experiences, but most of them such as Amerinds and Africans were kept under wrap by both de facto and legally mandated segregation. The 1960s took care of the latter, and affirmative action shattered the former.

A more fundamental American diversity experience occurred when Southern/Eastern Europeans joined the previously wholly Western European population. This manifested in a number of changes, including the rise of diversity politics where these groups settled in large numbers.

In particular, cities like Chicago, which had high Irish and Polish populations, showed how groups from outside the West tended toward different systems of self-governance, specifically the strongman model that is common in the third world.

Generally, Southern and Eastern European countries do better with strong leaders and less rule of law or insistence on the lack of corruption that Western Europeans prefer. Consider Italy, Russia and Ireland as contrasted to England during the same time period.

In Chicago and New York, these new immigrant populations created the rise of machine politics:

City government experts point to a political culture that’s been in place for more than 100 years. This culture dates back to the late 19th century, when a gambling-house owner named Michael Cassius McDonald created the city’s first political machine. Under machine-style rule, those in power would hand out contracts, jobs, and social services in exchange for political support.

Chicago’s large immigrant population made it easier for political machines to grow in power. Poor ethnic communities could be played off against one another and manipulated with petty gifts. In exchange for political support, ethnicities would be given virtual fiefdoms within city government; the Irish, for example, were given police work, and the Italians jobs at the transit authority.

Of course, none of this was unique to Chicago. New York City had large immigrant populations and the notorious political machine at Tammany Hall. But machine politics faded away in New York, due in part to external pressure from former New Yorker Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected president in 1932.

Did machine politics fade away, or were they simply transformed into the Leftist agenda upon which FDR embarked?

It definitely appears that the Left has assimilated the lessons from machine politics:

Chicago moved towards a one-party system that made it even more vulnerable to corruption: The city’s last Republican mayor left office in 1931. Today, not even the Democratic primaries are competitive—for the most part, once you’re in office, you stay there. The weak campaign finance laws in Illinois probably helped to stave off competition in recent years.

Diversity means that no social standards in common exist, and each ethnic group becomes a special interest group, which means they can be bought off like other special interest groups (minorities, religions, unions, LGBT+, industries, mothers against drunk driving, environmentalists) by giving them monopolies on certain roles.

At that point, the only sin is to violate the rules of the machine itself, which exists solely to further control, a system of power based on uniformity and power as a means-to-an-end of itself. Control necessarily arises from democracy as Plato detailed 2400 years ago.

Notice how similar that is to both the contemporary Leftists in the West and the Soviet Communists.

Apparently, the practice of machine politics is alive and well in Chicago today:

The Chicago Machine relies on unwritten rules to recruit new members and control existing ones. The machine’s unwritten rules are very similar to those of organized crime families and street gangs. Machine recruiters don’t hand new members a manual containing the rules. New machine members learn the organization’s customs and norms through their elders or by trial and error.

The machine relies on peer and social pressure to enforce its rules. The machine does not physically beat or murder those who violate the rules. Nonetheless, the machine metes out punishment including excommunication, loss of jobs, loss of contracts, public humiliation, or inspections that lead to hefty fines and loss of income. People who live in Chicago know why you “don’t fight City Hall.” If you dare challenge City Hall, the machine will apply its unlimited city resources to make you pay.

Machine members will tell you the machine doesn’t exist. It’s in the best interest of the machine to make you believe there is no such thing as a political machine. The machine doesn’t want voters like you to know there is a political organization manipulating your vote. The machine relies on votes from the unsuspecting public to manufacture patronage jobs, political power, campaign contributions, and income for members who make the machine’s candidates invincible at the polls.

When people join the Chicago political machine, they aren’t photographed and issued an identification card. The machine doesn’t require its members to periodically receive an updated identification card that says, “Chicago Machine Member since 2003.” The machine has no official dues, no official articles of incorporation, and no official meetings. The closest the machine gets to anything official is the Cook County and State of Illinois Democratic Party. The machine camouflages itself under the false pretense of a political party that exists to serve the public good.

The machine is strictly business. The machine doesn’t sell drugs or weapons. Its stock and trade is political influence and power. The machine has control of city, county, and state taxes and often uses the money it collects as its own. At the very least, the machine’s elected officials trade government services for campaign contributions, which is why Jay Stone has sought a ban on political contributions from companies and people who do business with the city.

Everything the machine does is designed to get its members reelected so the machine can hold on to its political power and control government jobs and the taxes it collects. The machine is easy to get along with provided you play the machine’s game. If you ask members of the machine for help with problems concerning city, county, or state government, you can have it provided you help enough influential political machine members get what they want.

In other words, independent of the groups involved, the practice of diversity itself leads to thirdworlding, or the transfer of first world states to third world levels of order.

Diversity causes a wide range of negative impacts, but most fundamentally it destroys the identity and shared culture of a society leading to loss of social order and vanishing social trust, leading to civilization collapse.

Our future under diversity is more of the same, except that thanks to FDR, the Chicago/Tammany Hall model has gone nationwide through the proto-Communist Left wing of the United States.

Can Philosophers Keep Politics And Economics Apart?

Saturday, September 3rd, 2016


Organized society mostly promotes separation of Church and State, as well as separation of powers such as between legislative, executive and the judiciary. This separation prevents for the most part corruptive enterprises also known as white collar crime, whereas (in other cases) sometimes the opposite is required i.e. to integrate, coordinate or to provide seamless operations.

An additional function requiring more separation these days is “economics and politics” while another function requiring less separation is “philosophy and politics”.

These functions can be combined in a continuum as follows:

Politics  Philosophy  Economics

Philosophy both separates politics from economy and serves as the balancing point between the two. We can see this in current Western civilization.

Imagine that politics decided to implement the liberal-democratic ideology for all countries. Initially this leads to fair economic growth and most people are happy because one benefit punted by this ideology, was that it will increase the middle-class. This would also lead to stability in the populace that would benefit both lower and upper classes.

But after a few generations, some people became unhappy because the economy is not good. Corporations cannot make money, so economists initiated the quantitative easing “experiment” to see if that will help. Since money was no object for corporations anymore, they promptly attempted to revitalize the middle-class. Then this failed too.
The problem is that the middle-class does not want money. Then pressure on corporations increase even further and that depletes the middle-class even further. Investors get agitated and put pressure on politicians, but politicians do not realize they have to change their ideology, so they go dark.

Disentangling oneself from this mess allows a more focused view. Politicians are feverishly playing their own “system” while economists are feverishly playing another “system.” This is getting so bad nowadays, that politicians become economists and vice versa, while everybody loses.

One way to keep them all honest (and wealthy) is to insert unbiased philosophers inbetween.

Take a specific example such as the European Union. It is a monetary union separated from its political union. Being a monetary union means businesses get priority, this allows for the importation of cheap labor from Africa. However, this is not politically tenable, leading to a serious growth in political opposition that may actually break the monetary union apart.

A philosopher-king can impose a mediating force. Neither economics nor politics alone can solve this situation, since economics will sacrifice all other disciplines for lowest cost and highest efficiency, and politics rewards what is popular at the moment.

Instead, we need a continuously monitored stabilizing factor. Philosophy looks at what is true, not what humans want to think is true or what benefits some but not all aspects of society, as economics does. By virtue of peering into long-term consequences, and their effect on civilization as a whole, philosophy mediates the extremes of politics and economics, which ultimately should be seen as tools toward the ends that philosophy defines.

When we removed the power of the kings, we took away the arbitrary strong power required to say “this is the right thing to do, even if it will not appear that way for centuries or millennia.” This is what philosophy does: it compares truths, and finds the most realistic ones, and matches them up with our rarely-articulated inner desire for greatness, meaning, mystery and significance.

Economics, as a tool and not a goal in itself, has a tendency to burn itself out by dominating the field and then for short-term gain, rendering necessary long-term implements unnecessary. Similarly, politics sacrifices the invisible stability and health of a civilization for panics and trends. Without a balancing factor in the middle, these two positive forces become destructive ones.

This theme appears in all organizations where dark organizational tendencies erupt within. The part stands for the whole, the tool becomes the master, and the short-term obviates long-term needs. Dark organizational might be seen as this process of parasitism, where purpose becomes hijacked by convenience.

As applied to the contemporary Western Civilization, this concept means more than a desire for philosopher-kings: we need a balance, or unison, between the different types of power in our society so they work together toward the same goal. More than fighting political problems on the surface, this promises a saner future by fixing the root of our disorganization.

OMFG The Alt Right Is Racist (Hide Your Daughters, They Love This Stuff)

Thursday, September 1st, 2016


Cue the media catch-up because a term they did not originate has taken over the airwaves.

The National Review writes that the alt right = pure racism:

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

They seem to have missed the point that for the last 70 years, bashing white people — and using that as an excuse to demand subsidies from them — has been the modus operandi of the dominant left-wing parties. The putative conservative parties have done nothing to arrest this, but instead in an attempt to be popular by following bandwagon trends, have endorsed it.

The alt right is the pushback. But not just against anti-whiteness; against the decline of Western Civilization at large. For Western Civilization to survive, and reverse its collapse, however, its people must survive: those who are genetically Western European, which is what most of the world means when it says “white.”

Funny about that National Review article, because (theoretical) enemy of the Right Hillary Clinton says the same thing:

The alternative right, commonly known as the alt-right, is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that tracks hate groups), as a “set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”

In other words: This is not conservatism or the Republican Party. This is a movement that fosters anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-women rhetoric. This is a white supremacist movement, and one that Trump has not only refused to denounce—it’s one he actively courts.

If you oppose multiculturalism, you are a racist, in the view of both mainstream right and left. What does this tell us? The only permissible view is to accept the importation of many foreign people, eventually obliterating the native population. No leader who cares about the wellbeing of his people does this, and yet we have voices from both sides of the imaginary aisle demanding it.

This outlook follows the pathology of Leftism: it is not reflective of reality, but of humanity. It wants what humans wish were true. This leads to illusion, and is how every human society self-destructs, but because popular things produce immediate rewards, the illusion — what our ancestors called “evil” — is always chosen, like dogs drinking antifreeze and becoming poisoned. This is the challenge of civilization.

The alt right constructs itself around a simple ideal. It suggests that we do what is real, not what is popular. This launches us into a reality-first assessment that sees biology as more important than intentions, education or politics. From that, we find ourselves arriving at ethno-nationalism, or the idea that a nation is its people, specifically the genetically founding group.

The advantage of nationalism, in addition to the fact that homogeneous societies are the most stable and happiest, is that it does away with the need for government, and with it politics and “systems” of elaborate rules designed to make evil (illusion-dependent) people equivalent to good ones. People rule themselves by cultural standards, and that way, when they ostracize someone, it is for an actual transgression.

An eternally popular human illusion might be stated as “we are all one.” In this illusion, all people are the same everywhere, and so with the right rules, we can make them do good even if they are not good. This way, no one needs to be looked into to see if they are evil, and if they do an evil thing, they are automatically forgiven and still part of the group. This anti-Darwinian and pro-evil stance results in civilization decay.

In one of the more penetrating articles of the week, Ricardo Duchesne asks why multiculturalism has spread across the West so rapidly:

But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world.

He explores a number of theories, and invents a few terms, but ultimately, finds no answer. Here is the answer: multiculturalism spread because it is a variant of the “we are all one” idea, which is popular because it enforces the idea of equality, which is in turn popular because with equality, the individual is accepted regardless of his abilities or evil acts. Equality is created by individuals through the group, but it protects the group only as a way of protecting the individual; its actual goal is to weaken the group, so that the group cannot ejecting low-performing or evil members. Equality is the anti-Darwin. Equality is also the eternally popular illusion.

All of Leftism — class warfare, diversity, sexual liberation, socialism, big government, etc. — arises from the idea of equality. Since equality is not-real (evil) it must be enforced. The best way to do that is to destroy everything but equality in the minds of the people, which requires deconstructing (destroying) culture, heritage, the family, personal integrity, history, art and love.

Diversity is an arrow in this quiver. With diversity, the heritage and culture of the host nation are destroyed, and it is unable to state any standards but those presumed to be universal, which are something like this: “All people like to eat and drink, and be safe, and have jobs, and not be interfered with unless they are committing grand theft, murder, rape or assault.”

This is why it spread like wildfire: it is a version of the ideology which had already spread like wildfire, Leftism, and so people adopted it as the latest means of making Leftism more powerful, thus protecting the individual from judgment.

That particular illusion manifests in “magic dirt” theory, described quite elegantly by Lawrence Murray:

Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!

Name the theory above: it is a system. Instead of choosing the right people, you choose universal equal people, and have the right rules to shape them into perfect replicas of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is why the dirt must be magic. When you get them here, into our system, they are transformed like raw materials in a factory. That universal human set of desires — eat, drink, safety, no oversight — becomes a series of incentives through which these people are manipulated. Then, they see the wisdom of our ways, and become Us, or at least something that carries on Our ideology.

If you are thinking that ideology behaves like a virus here, you are correct. Much like fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps, the ideology of equality hijacks human brains and turns them into zombies, destroying them to propagate itself. This may be one of the few universal rules of the universe: all ideas seek to replicate themselves. (This also makes a handy theological argument: if the basis of the universe is ideas replicating, all life is a replication of the essential idea of life, which fits the profile of God.)

Systems arise from equality. Without equality, there is no need for systems, because people are known as they are by their acts. When we cannot hold people responsible for their actions because they are equal, we need a nanny state to guide them every step of the way, and because it uses a utilitarian approach, it begins its activity by assuming that all people are equally screwed up and so they have to be treated like retarded children.


In contrast, reality says that genetics trumps all of our best intentions, as revealed by this periodically strikingly realistic article in Foreign Affairs:

But recent evidence suggests that, in reality, social mobility rates are extremely low. Seven to ten generations are required before the descendants of high and low status families achieve average status. Thus in modern Sweden the descendants of the eighteenth-century nobility are still heavily overrepresented — 300 years later — among higher social status groups: doctors, attorneys, the wealthy, members of the Swedish Royal Academies. In the United Kingdom, the descendants of families who sent a son to Oxford or Cambridge around 1800 are still four times as likely to attend these universities as the average person. Social mobility rates have also been relatively impervious to government policy. They are no higher in societies like Sweden, with generous interventions in favor of the children of disadvantaged families, than in the more laissez-faire United States. For that matter, they are no higher in modern Sweden than in eighteenth-century Sweden, or medieval England.

This reverses the magic cult of equality.

Equality requires that we presuppose that human intent is more important than who those humans are, inside, including innate traits like those passed on by genetics, which is — no giant surprise here — nearly all of them, or by a conservative estimate, 80% of all of them. (I point interested readers to The Blank Slate or the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, in which twin studies feature prominently.)

With human intent, we can design systems. We can break out the carrot-and-stick and manipulate people by appealing to their reason. This denies the fact that reason, like everything else, is unequally distributed among every population. If it was evenly distributed, the group would have only two states: unison or complete disorder. Unequal distribution allows the group to move in waves rather than binary states.

When we turn to genetics as the basis for human behavior, we are suddenly looking at a situation where human intent is almost all nonsense, cover stories, justifications, rationalizations and manipulative lies; people do what they do because they are wired to do those things, and if we demand an appeal to their reason, they just do what they were going to do anyway and then make up ad hoc excuses for why it was important, contributing the mental equivalent of spam to the discussion.

However, this is an antisocial truth. To be social, people must trust one another through the symbols they use to communicate. The biology-first anti-equality view of life says that not only is that not necessarily true, but that relying on it encourages lying and deception. Oops.

This brings us back to “racism,” which is a Left-word for people wanting to associate with those like themselves.

Like other natural instincts, which are acted upon but cannot be articulated, our desire to associate with those like ourselves is a force multiplier. Having a group that does not require an expensive committee of oversight, otherwise known as government/police, achieves a great efficiency: all the effort that would have previously been spent disciplining (white) human monkeys can now be devoted to other things, like art, learning, architecture, etc.

Originally our societies had almost no government. There were committees of old men to judge matters brought before them at the local level, and kings who were more war and religious leaders than those who “preside” or attempt to shape society toward ideological goals, and then helpful people like local pastors and philosophers who could make sense of complex things and give advice to both individuals and the aforementioned leaders and judges.

In order to uphold equality, we need government, police, psychologists, lawyers, bureaucrats and others who essentially take wealth from the group and use it for their own purposes. Society goes further into breakdown.

Of course, here we hit an iron line: equality is social, and anti-equality biology-first thinking (one facet of realism) is antisocial for the reasons mentioned above. People want to think they can control the world through symbols, image/appearance and manipulation. In reality, that only works in the short term.

This is another reason why the alt right endorses racism: it is imperative that we shatter the illusion that only that which is social is good. Thus, we embrace “social evil” — or that which is antisocial but true — so that we may fight actual evil, or that which in reality has bad consequences but in the human mind seems appealing.

In this view, every human effort fails not because it makes uniquely wrong choices, but because it makes the same wrong choice, which is to be social. When it becomes social, it gets sold out, and then whatever it had that was unique is destroyed and replaced by the same illusions that fail every other time.

For this reason, establishment conservatives and global Leftist elites are doing our work for us. They are calling us evil, in social terms, and by doing so, are signaling that we are right in reality because we have denied social taboo with nothing personal to gain from doing so.

Your daughters love this kind of masculine, violent and realistic approach because it makes them know they are safe, instead of temporarily feeling safe when swayed by the words of hipster manchildren or feminist studies professors. It creates a knowing deep within them. The alt right are the 2010s equivalent of leather jacketed bad boys on motorcycles except that this time, it is not hype. They are here to destroy illusions, and that is why they are feared.

The Evil Emperors of The Amerikan Empire II: Lyndon Baines Johnson

Tuesday, August 30th, 2016


Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emporers Commodus or Elegabolus.

Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious LBJ.

Imagine you hated the US of A with a purple passion. Imagine you could install your malignant pawn in a state of almost uncontested power. What might you do? Starting a nuclear exchange with Russia would be gauche and leave you only a set of ruins that you couldn’t even inhabit, much less rule. So WWSD (What would Satan do?)

In the wake of the made for Hollywood whacking of playboy president JFK, the Democratic operatives with bylines int he US media created an atmosphere in which Pee Wee Herman could have won an electoral landslide. The winner in 1964 was Lucifer himself: Lyndon Baines Johnson. So we return to our previous inquiry WWSD?

The first subtle evil unleashed by Lyndon Johnson involved a doctrine inserted into the Civil Rights legislation. This was the doctrine of disparate impact. This legal theory was a staple of the litigation that would follow the passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This empowered government to intervene on the side of a plaintiff even if no discrimination was initially intended. Here’s a explanation of how this empowers bureaucratic score-settling and the destruction of basic Freedom of Association rights through perpetual lawfare.

Disparate impact discrimination is a legal theory first recognized by the courts. In addressing a Title VII discrimination case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the burden of proof shifted to the employer once the employee (past or present) or job applicant was able to prove that a particular employment practice caused a disparate impact on their protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 later amended Title VII, clarifying that once an employee establishes the existence of a disparate impact from an employment practice, the employer must then prove that such practice is “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

LBJ could have stopped there and done plenty of damage, but The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only an LRIP. He had far more meyhem to unload on the Amerian People. You see, America’s standing immigration policies prior to LBJ’s Reign of Error involved quotas based on national origin of the immigrants. Those not favored by these quotas predictably cried !RACIST! Here’s how cultures get undermined below.

“The law was just unbelievable in its clarity of racism,” says Stephen Klineberg, a sociologist at Rice University. “It declared that Northern Europeans are a superior subspecies of the white race. The Nordics were superior to the Alpines, who in turn were superior to the Mediterraneans, and all of them were superior to the Jews and the Asians.”

This gave LBJ the opportunity to swing the immigration wrecking ball into the American culture and economy that he inherited as emporer. He injected the malignant twin viruses of diversity and economic replacement via the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965. The influx of foreign population began with trickle and soon reached a torrent.

“The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States,” scholars have noted. At first the new immigration came largely from southern Europe, especially Italy. But that stream played out in about a decade. Meanwhile, immigration from Eastern Europe was limited by repressive communist governments.By 1980, most immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — in numbers far greater than the annual average of 300,000 that had prevailed during the 1960s. Despite assurances by Hart-Celler advocates that the bill would add little to the immigrant stream, more than seven million newcomers entered the country legally during the 1980s. That trend has continued. Meanwhile, illegal immigration also began a decades-long surge…

Another nefarious aspect of Hart-Celler was the skill-based criterion of immigrant admissions. This allowed industries that wanted to deliberately bring in surrogate workforces to replace the legacy working-class that had grown used to increasing wages, benefits and opportunities. This crashed into a brick wall of decreasing economies of scale and increasing international competition. This forced cost-cutting measures. This will typically start with payroll. Rather than doing with less, the Hart-Celler Act allowed employers to do with cheaper. The recent H1B assassination of Walt Disney’s homegrown IT workforce.

So LBJ laid waste to Freedom of Association, persued an immigration policy that laid out sugar-coated rat poison for American blue-collar culture, but no! He sadly wasn’t through wrecking AMerica. Then came LBJ’s quaint little conflict. His war to embarass Amerika. Vietnam.

LBJ’s kinda-sorta-but-not-really commitment to winning The Vietnam War established a precedent of disinterested warfare on the frontiers of the empire. It was conflict designed to put a stick in the spokes on COmintern’s bicycle wheel. It was international realpolitik involving no direct American interest. 58,220 AMerican soldiers died so that LBJ could play the geopolitical game of thrones. The legions of the Amerikan Empire were sent to go bungle on the far-flung borders.

I could blog all day and not truly express the extent of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s iniquity. The welfare legislation he rammed through congress was the piece de resistance that cemented the well-deserved, sulphurous legacy that clings to his career of evil. He deliberately cultivated his programs such as AFDC to create a client of servile dependency. His bastard bounty welfare programs wrecked havoc on the structure of lower income familes and reduced them to peasantry. LBJ’s boast regarding his Great Society welfare initiative speaks volumes of how Liberals truly think of race and humanity.

I’ll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society plan.

SUch was the almost glorious evil of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He destroyed Freedom of Association in the name of Civil Rights. He poisoned America’s immigration system in the cause of ending racism. He humiliated America’s military and blackened our name throughout the world in the process of slow-walking embarassing defeat in Vietnam and made the promotion of bastardy an electoral strategy int he name of promoting the general welfare. Lyndon Baines Johnson was truly an evil Amerikan Emporer.

The Evil Emperors of The Amerikan Empire I: Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016


Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emporers Commodus or Elegabolus.

Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious FDR.

Follow the so-called “inside baseball” coverage of Amerika’s quadrennial electoral eructions and you’ll always hear some detestable, soul-sucking ghoul-geek like David Plouff or Karl Rove discuss how they intend to stack up the voting blocks. You get your Black Block,1 The Hispanic Block, The Women’s Block, The Working Class Block, The Evengelical Block, etc… Just slam all these people into equivalence classes and collect them and trade them with your K-Street friends. All the fascinating things that Hedrick Smith talks about in The Power Game. Politics as a self-licking dog-feces ice cream cone. Politics reduced to an evil, self-perpetuating vote-sucking machine.

So how did American Democracy become this soulless empire of political coalition building? It came to be that way because FDR perfected the art. The art then worked like hell. How well? So well that Franklin Roosevelt won in 1932, then in 1936, and 1940, and 1944. He has the dubious honor of having spawned his very own constitutional amendment which limits presidents to two consecutive presidential terms. In many ways he was the very architect of the cynical and manipulative political machines we so hate yet still see repeatedly grind their way into power.

As Amerika’s Proto-Putin, Roosevelt established the first wonk squad of professional electioneers. Dubbed “The Brain Trust”, these men worked on honing and messaging his message and increasing his appeal. His 1932 election campaign first introduced his idea of a “new deal for America.” By 1936, he had further honed his strategy and now concentrated upon locking in the “New Deal Coalition.” This INGSOC of emerging democratic socialism is described below.

Roosevelt had put together what came to be called the “New Deal Coalition,” an alliance of voters from different regions of the country and from racial, religious and ethnic groups. The coalition combined southern Protestants, northern Jews, Catholics and blacks from urban areas, labor union members, small farmers in the middle west and Plains states, and liberals and radicals. This diverse group, with some minor alterations, would power the Democrats for the next thirty years—and it was Roosevelt who put it together.

Like Orwell’s literary INGSOC, the system needed a controlled anomaly. It needed a Lucifier to scare the butts into the pews every Sunday. Orwell’s governing malefactors invented the imaginary Wandering Jew Emanuel Goldstein. Proto-typical socialist class warfare demagougery follows below.

Referring to “business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking,” FDR crowed, “Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

When faced with the honorable tradition established by America’s first president, George Washington, Roosevelt would not let a bunch of fuddy-duddy sticks-in-the-mud stand between him and the political power he worshipped.

In 1940, Roosevelt decided to run for an unprecedented third term, breaking the tradition set by George Washington that limited Presidents to eight years in office. FDR had been coy about his future for most of his second term, but finally told confidantes that he would run only if the situation in Europe deteriorated further and his fellow Democrats drafted him as their candidate. Nazi Germany’s successful invasion of Western Europe and defeat of France in the spring of 1940 took care of the former condition; FDR’s political operatives, especially Chicago mayor Ed Kelly, arranged for the latter.

So Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to go down in Non-Whig History as a malignant prince of Demotism and one of Amerika’s Evil Emporers for three reasons.

  1. He perfected the black art of winning democratic elections by providing lists of gimme-dats to selected coalitions of voters rather than attempting the difficult and thankless task of developing, programming and selling an affirmative vision to solve the nation’s problems.

  2. He perfected the use of scapegoating to divide the nation and motivate his coalition by turning them loose on an enemy. Politics was one step closer to war and one step further from high-minded philosophical disagreement.

  3. Franklin Roosevelt’s disregard for decency and tradition as a safeguard against personal power-mongering greatly accelerated the trend of politicians never letting a crisis go to waste when it came to acquiring greater personnal fiat. His scheme to create more Supreme Court justices when they declared aspects of The New Deal unconstitutional was an authoritarian impulse that he fortunately backed away from. Yet the sense remains that he would have become Amerika’s Hugo Chavez if circumstances had facilitated him getting away with it.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been merely the predictable result of democracy on its downhill slide into ignorant demotism. Yet he bears blame for exacerbating weaknesses inherent to our system. I indict his memory for using them to acquire more power for himself at the expense of both comity and commonweal. Curse the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was indeed an evil Amerikan Emporer.

1 It’s at this exact point in time when their individual lives no longer matter.

Religion And Realism Must Be In Balance

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

From some of the more insightful Christian rightists, an article about cultural change leading to political change:

The most common way God judges is with the natural consequences of our choices and behavior. This is especially true in politics, which is mostly downstream from – and a reflection of – the broader culture. In other words, especially in our country, we tend to get the leaders we deserve. Which is why this November we should cast our vote with fear, trembling, weeping, praying for mercy, and maybe even while wearing sackcloth and ashes.

The first part makes good sense. Political change is an effect, and the cause is a change in consciousness of the natural leaders — people without political authority who are recognized in their communities for their leadership ability — in a society. It is not a shift in mass consciousness, but among those who lead by instinct, and others emulate them.

With this cultural change, political change can occur, because those who influence others now understand the issue a different way. This cultural change is also required for any restoration of religion, which also requires political change to protect it so that people experience no risk for abandoning the secular humanist outlook, and are also able to experience its rewards.

Religion and realism must be in balance. Some Christian rightists want a religious upheaval, but this will not happen without the groundwork being set in cultural and political change. Similarly, cultural and political change work best when kept in balance with a sense of purpose, which requires a goal, which requires an understanding of reality, including its metaphysical aspects.

The difference between liberals and conservatives

Thursday, March 24th, 2016


Our public enjoys the protection of pretending that they cannot understand the “complex” differences between liberal and conservative. This allows them to claim to be either, and justify any impulse they have under that banner because the identity is obscured behind their own confusion. Stupid monkeys.

The actual differences are simple: conservatism is non-utilitarian consequentialism, or the idea that results matter and we should “conserve” the methods that produced the best results. Liberalism is the idea of equality, which is justified by social feelings, and the desire to want to be altruistic and inclusive toward others to achieve peace.

So there you have it. Lions or Bonobos. One group wants to conquer problems, but the other group wants to ignore problems and spend time pleasuring each other by distributing fruit and sexual favors. It’s amazing how similar the behaviors are in their human versions.

I submit an even simpler difference: liberals do not understand cause/effect logic. That is, they cannot mentally process the fact that to achieve a certain effect, you must do something different that puts events in motion so that effect comes about.

If you wonder why the liberal solution to everything is Government, here is why: they cannot understand any way of making things happen then ordering them to happen, as if they were talking to a bartender or salesman, and government is the only institution that responds to that type of behavior. Government says “Right away sir!” and then works all night on a detailed bill for next tax season.

For example, if we discuss ending poverty, liberals can see only the handout being the solution, and anyone who disagrees is just a blue meanie who hates poor people. Conservatives talk about setting up economic and social incentives to reduce poverty where it can be reduced, so that the end result is a lessening of poverty, in part because we recognize poverty is eternal to the human condition.

The liberal just does not understand. Why are we talking about reducing taxes and lowering housing costs, maybe even killing minimum wage, to end poverty? Just give them the money. Poverty is no money, so give money. Bonobo hoots and hollers.

Conservatives always strike out when trying to explain things to liberals for this reason. They bring up a problem, we make a suggestion, and then try to reason it out with them. But they’re missing the chip that handles cause-to-effect, so to them it is a binary question: have government throw money/rules at the problem, or you are Hitler and must die.

There is no reconciliation.

Capitalism versus Commerce

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015


Coming from a liberal society entirely in the grips of Leftist ideology, few of us understand the nature of capitalism. Most of us confuse it with “business” or “commerce,” not realizing that those are actors within capitalism, not the thing itself.

Let me simplify capitalism: economic Darwinism. Profit is regulated by income, which is a factor of costs against price of goods and services, which are in turn regulated by supply and demand. That which provides a better product, price, convenience or otherwise eliminates costs for the purchaser will rise above the rest, much like in nature the more efficient animals gradually predominate. This carries both great benefits and great risks: it allows the best to rise, but if the environment is narrowed into easy stability, it rewards the merely efficient and the result is rats, pigeons and cockroaches.

Commerce opposes capitalism because of its competitive factor. What commerce wants is — as the image above says — “keep on keepin’ on” or “keep on truckin’,” which are generally-accepted bourgeois values that serve to narrow the environment. A narrow environment makes the situation easier for all involved, as they can keep on truckin’ — keep on doing whatever they have been doing, the money will keep flowing in, and they will get fat and happy as they pay off their home notes. People tend toward entropy in this way.

People hate risk. Any time risk is taken, they are both tested as to their own abilities to understand the situation and estimate its responses, and also subject to a roll of the dice. That great new business idea may turn out to be built on a mound of toxic waste. Risk is scary. It can also, in highly social — too much, many of us would say — societies like our own, pose a greater concern which is the threat of loss of self-esteem. Who wants to be known as the guy who built the best business ever on a toxic waste dump?

Capitalism on the other hand loves risk because much like the law of supply and demand, there is a balance between risk and reward. Greater risk means greater reward. Low risk means, well, what do we pay you for anyway? Like nature, capitalism rewards the wily creature who finds a quicker or better way of getting what it needs. This has no morality in itself, like all other mathematical systems, so it implies a need for two things: quality leadership and cultural standards to guide creators of products and services away from bad things and toward improving already good things.

What complicates this is economies of scale. The more you make of something, the cheaper it gets; this also applies to technologies, which over time become easier because a library of knowledge and techniques exists. Over time, margins — the juicy slice of profit between cost and sale price — narrow. This means that volume becomes more important and that fewer companies can be active in that particular niche. This means that over time products become cheaper, which prompts companies to cut costs including sometimes quality, at the same time the market reduces to just a few forces. Like rats, companies become opportunists for small rewards and repeat that process many times, where in the early stages of the market they were like eagles, taking high risk for aggressive and daring acts of conquest.

Commerce inevitably reaches this point because it increases the number of dependents. If you wonder why large corporations seem to do such a poor job, it is this: they eliminate internal risk as they get larger because of the difficulty of replacing key personnel, the greater power to fail given each of those people, and the need for redundancy. As products get cheaper and the market concentrates, costs also increase as size of the companies involved increases, which further reduces quality. When Microsoft screws up the latest version of a product, it is probably not because they are doing it cheaper, but because it is more expensive but also coordinated over many thousands of people. Commerce self-destructs through entropy, just like any species that makes it too easy on itself turns into an adaptive generalist like rats.

What lessons could capitalism teach us here? First, that commerce is a counter-weight to competition and improvement, and second that market divisions are highly useful. When all companies are competing on the level of “worldwide,” the tendency is for them to get bigger and bigger and less efficient. When a company limits its business to, say, the Allegheny Valley, it also limits its size. However, that is counteracted by the rise of large cities, which force companies to expand in order to meet competition as the technology ripens, and also produce labor forces which encourage people to leave jobs. That forces companies to make each job simpler and more separable, like an interchangeable part, and to have redundancy. If you wonder why cubicle jobs are soul-sucking hell of tedium alternated with incompetence and panic, this is the reason.

A society composed of many widely-separated small cities is more efficient in this way than having huge cities. Each one maintains its own industry, the labor market is relatively stable, and the need for growth is removed. This allows companies to continue to have relatively high margins and avoid completing the death-cycle of expanding too fast. It also means that each worker has a job with wider variety and more responsibility, thus more power to exercise choice, which makes jobs inherently less miserable. Coincidentally, this model proves better for the environment as it requires less transportation, keeps population from growing with commerce, and enables higher competition to improve the abilities of that population.

Commerce cannot stop itself from pursuing entropy because commerce is composed of individuals who want to maximize their own profit. Without good leaders and strong culture, it will drive itself into low-margin status and then find ways to broaden the audience for its product, which always means dumbing it down or finding a more prurient, ironic or trendy interest. All of those things are blight to societies and individuals. Left alone, commerce will create the overpopulation conditions of yeast left in sugar, where the number of individuals expands with supply of food until it is all consumed and they must eat each other (when you see yuppies, this process is underway).

Some businesses bring great benefit from their expanded state. Wal-mart, for example, has made low cost products available to many people who previously had no access. National car manufacturers are probably more efficient and accountable than Joe’s East Texas Motors. Most of these large businesses self-destruct however from failure of leadership. They become known sources of profit and attract people who use these businesses for the person’s own needs at the expense of the business and society, a process known as externalizing risk. Then the business begins to fail and eventually becomes a source of dwindling but constant cash while its previous customers, who keep buying whatever worked for them, fail to receive the information that they are now buying lower-quality products.

A good leader can restart a dying corporation or keep a growing one from expanding faster than its likely food supply. Like eagles, good businesses are hard on themselves, and do not take on more people than they need. They also pursue difficult food sources, which means keeping technology advancing rather than stagnating, instead of becoming indiscriminate. Good leaders of this sort are opposed by commerce, which sees them as cutting out profits or as they like to call it “creating losses,” by not jumping after “opportunities” that lead to reduction in quality and bloating of the staff roll. Public opinion agrees with commerce because it wants more easy jobs where there is low risk and high reward. Commerce and public opinion oppose actual capitalism on this issue, which — by virtue of the mathematical nature of economics — sees companies trying to avoid monopoly, bloat and entropy.

Politicians exploit public opinion in this way and create rules to favor commerce over capitalism. The more rules they make, the easier it gets to keep on keepin’ on, and the harder it gets to take risks. Everyone becomes bloated and actual value declines. The politicians know this, so they tend to make their money and invest it in foreign companies who are out-performing the domestic ones. Take the money and run. The public sees quality declining and as a result of value declining, its own salaries becoming less effective at purchasing goods and services, so it demands more rules. The cycle of entropy continues.

In this way, commerce like most human ventures becomes self-destructive as it succeeds. By doing what the eagles would not, which is gaining dominance over its environment entirely and making it easy like rats eating out of dumpsters, commerce hobbles capitalism — which represents risk — and makes itself ineffectual. Entropy wins and everyone suffers, having never understood any of the principles behind capitalism which might have saved them from human self-delusion in the form of commerce, public opinion and politics.

How your future was ruined

Saturday, March 21st, 2015


In nature, one of the most numerous classes of organisms is that of parasites.

These creatures, instead of producing their own sustenance, draw it from others. They range from viruses to monkeys who steal food from others.

Parasitism can be observed with manipulative behavior as well. In city parks across earth, grackles have learned a simple trick: pretend to have an injured wing or missing leg, and humans will take pity on them and toss over more food.

In the realm of symbols, language and emotions such as are the glue of civilizations, parasitism takes the form of appealing to pity. Pity involves making a public display of ineptitude such that others feel compelled to help, lest the people around them think those others heartless. People like seeing displays of emotion because those make them feel “safe,” thinking that the other person is somehow incapable of acts of self-serving viciousness.

People forget that a parasite is merely a passive form of the predator. Where the predator takes, the parasite begs. This rewards the parasite with less food, but does so at much reduced risk. A predator must hunt and may come home with nothing; a parasite almost always has something. It is the safer, more responsible, and more business-savvy response to the question of predation. No Fortune 500 company would ever endorse hunting — what do you say to the stockholders when you have a bad quarter? — but like farming, represents an evening-out of risk. The reduced risk leads to greater profits through eliminating margins of cost and uncertainty.

Your future was ruined when civilization decided to become a parasite on itself. Or rather: on those who are productive. The non-producers want guaranteed inclusion in society so that they can create a parasitic role for themselves. As the number of parasites increases, the society tips over and eventually order collapses, leaving behind third world levels of chaos.

To force inclusion, parasites invent two destructive forces: politics and make-work. The former requires that every idea be debated not in terms of its effects, which very few can understand, but in terms of its appearance, such as feelings, judgments and desires, which is where human self-discipline is at its lowest and in groups nearly non-existent. It favors anything that introduces strong feelings because those polarize enough of the voters to have a plurality and thus compel others to go along with the plan. Make-work is designed to include those who are actually useless in jobs so that they are not simply cut out of society, and consists of creating tasks which do not need doing. What society ever perished from a lack of lawyers, bureaucrats, or entertainers? Whole industries are invented to “serve” citizens products they do not need, and at each level government, industry and unions conspire to layer the process with administrators, managers, bureaucrats and compliance officers. Each takes a little sip of the chalice of wealth before passing it on to those who actually generate it.

Karl Marx served as the best perpetrator of this fraud. He drew a distinction between workers and owners, which neatly split the class of producers into each group and in each group lumped them in with the parasites. This created a more socially acceptable way of being outraged at the ongoing leeching of wealth from society to parasites, but by creating the artificial category “workers” (versus producers) it ended up providing cover for and defending the parasites as objects of pity. Through this method, your future was ruined and stolen from you, leaving only a path of endless labor to support the growing consort of parasites.

Recommended Reading